All the figures that I’ve seen (from Department of Immigration) indicate that over 90% of people who make dangerous boat journeys towards Australia are people fleeing persecution in need of a protection visa.

If I could afford it, I’d probably try to do both. I’d be leaving behind my family, my friends, fleeing from a war, persecution or famine that threatened my family. I’d be destitute and penniless, looking at a life of poverty and begging or maybe getting into drugs/prostitution unless I was in a place where I could reliably bootstrap myself and my family up from nothing.

Again, Unless they’ve moved Australia completely or every single country outside of south asia is a chaotic hellhole, basic ‘survival’ does not seem to be the motivation of those that get to the boat stage. While there is no ‘queue’ in the truest sense there is however ‘resources’ that are expended, budgets utilised and time spent on people that have overloaded the system and required to be dealt with. No one can say that for each one that ponies up the thousands of dollars to travel half way around the world to arrive at their country of choice, ignoring many stable countries on the way is not getting ahead of someone that is sitting in a border camp in a destitute situation.

BimboGeek said :

I can’t really blame anyone who tries to do exactly what I would do in the situation.

You would settle in the first stable country you came across or would you be taking the goldilocks approach? ‘This country is too hot, this one is too cold, this one only has back breaking work, this one doesn’t have a social security system’…

BimboGeek said :

Actually, I’d have to be really desperate to get to the “leaky fishing boat” stage. I like boats but I’m not big on letting the drunk fishermen drive them, particularly if I was trying to get my kids to safety. So that only gives me more sympathy.

I have no sympathy to those who take things in their own hands, only demand asylum in a country that meets their perceived living standards whilst skipping through many other stable countries that may provide a lower standard, paying many thousands of dollars to do so at the cost of those people that sit in refugee camps for years on end with barely a dollar to their name.

Those that can afford to pay smugglers are economic refugees in the truest sense. They’re not ‘desperate’ to survive or flee from persecution. They’re ‘desperate’ to retain or improve their living standards.

The ones that should be receiving your sympathy are the ones that can’t and could never pay to get their own way. Its the impatient middle and high class that are riding on the boats and planes, not the poor masses that should be receiving it.

But I do have to ask, are these people getting a boat directly from their country of origin and heading towards Australia? Or are they passing through multiple politically stable countries on their way? Why would they ignore countries that are obviously not warzones or actively slaughtering their citizens and keep their eye on the prize that is settlement in Australia? Quite simple, if they were fleeing for their lives you would think that the first stable country they came to would be enough but that isn’t the primary interest. Its in raising their standard of living together with moving to a country that has better economic prospects for them personally.

If I could afford it, I’d probably try to do both. I’d be leaving behind my family, my friends, fleeing from a war, persecution or famine that threatened my family. I’d be destitute and penniless, looking at a life of poverty and begging or maybe getting into drugs/prostitution unless I was in a place where I could reliably bootstrap myself and my family up from nothing.

I can’t really blame anyone who tries to do exactly what I would do in the situation.

Actually, I’d have to be really desperate to get to the “leaky fishing boat” stage. I like boats but I’m not big on letting the drunk fishermen drive them, particularly if I was trying to get my kids to safety. So that only gives me more sympathy.

Legally, there is no such thing as a illegal asylum seeker. You tiny brained penises need to educate yourselves, but to do that you need to grow a brain.

Turn off the radio and do some actual research.

But I do have to ask, are these people getting a boat directly from their country of origin and heading towards Australia? Or are they passing through multiple politically stable countries on their way? Why would they ignore countries that are obviously not warzones or actively slaughtering their citizens and keep their eye on the prize that is settlement in Australia? Quite simple, if they were fleeing for their lives you would think that the first stable country they came to would be enough but that isn’t the primary interest. Its in raising their standard of living together with moving to a country that has better economic prospects for them personally.

How do these supposed poor souls afford to pay to leave their countries, survive in each country they pass through all the while paying smugglers at each point. This would run into the tens of thousands of dollars. These people aren’t the ones that should be helped, they’re the middle to high class that had the financial means to push their way through. The people that should be helped are the ones that sit in destitute situations in UN camps. The ones that survive purely on red cross/crescent handouts and could only dream of wasting money on airflights, boat trips and smugglers.

For every illegal arrival by boat or plane, the government should take 2 from UN camps in places like dafor or hatay. The actual people that need help.